Search

Importance: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used as temporary cardiorespiratory support in critically ill patients, but little is known regarding long-term psychiatric sequelae among survivors after ECMO.Objective: To investigate the association between ECMO survivorship and postdischarge mental health diagnoses among adult survivors of critical illness.Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, from April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2020. Adult patients (N=4462; age ≥18 years) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and surviving to hospital discharge were included.Exposures: Receipt of ECMO.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a new mental health diagnosis (a composite of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder; schizophrenia, other psychotic disorders; other mental health disorders; and social problems) following discharge. There were 8 secondary outcomes including incidence of substance misuse, deliberate self-harm, death by suicide, and individual components of the composite primary outcome. Patients were compared with ICU survivors not receiving ECMO using overlap propensity score-weighted cause-specific proportional hazard models.Results: Among 642 survivors who received ECMO (mean age, 50.7 years; 40.7% female), median length of follow-up was 730 days; among 3820 matched ICU survivors who did not receive ECMO (mean age, 51.0 years; 40.0% female), median length of follow-up was 1390 days. Incidence of new mental health conditions among survivors who received ECMO was 22.1 per 100-person years (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.5-25.1), and 14.5 per 100-person years (95% CI, 13.8-15.2) among non-ECMO ICU survivors (absolute rate difference of 7.6 per 100-person years [95% CI, 4.7-10.5]). Following propensity weighting, ECMO survivorship was significantly associated with an increased risk of new mental health diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24 [95% CI, 1.01-1.52]). There were no significant differences between survivors who received ECMO vs ICU survivors who did not receive ECMO in substance misuse (1.6 [95% CI, 1.1 to 2.4] per 100 person-years vs 1.4 [95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6] per 100 person-years; absolute rate difference, 0.2 per 100 person-years [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.8]; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.48 to 1.53]) or deliberate self-harm (0.4 [95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9] per 100 person-years vs 0.3 [95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3] per 100 person-years; absolute rate difference, 0.1 per 100 person-years [95% CI, -0.2 to 0.4]; HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.21 to 2.23]). There were fewer than 5 total cases of death by suicide in the entire cohort.Conclusions and Relevance: Among adult survivors of critical illness, receipt of ECMO, compared with ICU hospitalization without ECMO, was significantly associated with a modestly increased risk of new mental health diagnosis or social problem diagnosis after discharge. Further research is necessary to elucidate the potential mechanisms underlying this relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: The efficacy and safety of prone positioning is unclear in nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of prone positioning in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19.Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hospitals in Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Eligible adult patients with COVID-19 were not intubated and required oxygen (≥40%) or noninvasive ventilation. A total of 400 patients were enrolled between May 19, 2020, and May 18, 2021, and final follow-up was completed in July 2021.Intervention: Patients were randomized to awake prone positioning (n = 205) or usual care without prone positioning (control; n = 195).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation within 30 days of randomization. The secondary outcomes included mortality at 60 days, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days, days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days, adverse events, and serious adverse events.Results: Among the 400 patients who were randomized (mean age, 57.6 years [SD, 12.83 years]; 117 [29.3%] were women), all (100%) completed the trial. In the first 4 days after randomization, the median duration of prone positioning was 4.8 h/d (IQR, 1.8 to 8.0 h/d) in the awake prone positioning group vs 0 h/d (IQR, 0 to 0 h/d) in the control group. By day 30, 70 of 205 patients (34.1%) in the prone positioning group were intubated vs 79 of 195 patients (40.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12], P = .20; absolute difference, -6.37% [95% CI, -15.83% to 3.10%]). Prone positioning did not significantly reduce mortality at 60 days (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40], P = .54; absolute difference, -1.15% [95% CI, -9.40% to 7.10%]) and had no significant effect on days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days or on days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days. There were no serious adverse events in either group. In the awake prone positioning group, 21 patients (10%) experienced adverse events and the most frequently reported were musculoskeletal pain or discomfort from prone positioning (13 of 205 patients [6.34%]) and desaturation (2 of 205 patients [0.98%]). There were no reported adverse events in the control group.Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19, prone positioning, compared with usual care without prone positioning, did not significantly reduce endotracheal intubation at 30 days. However, the effect size for the primary study outcome was imprecise and does not exclude a clinically important benefit.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350723. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Treatment with noninvasive oxygenation strategies such as noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen may be more effective than standard oxygen therapy alone in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Objective: To compare the association of noninvasive oxygenation strategies with mortality and endotracheal intubation in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Data Sources: The following bibliographic databases were searched from inception until April 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS. No limits were applied to language, publication year, sex, or race.Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials enrolling adult participants with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure comparing high-flow nasal oxygen, face mask noninvasive ventilation, helmet noninvasive ventilation, or standard oxygen therapy.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted individual study data and evaluated studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses using a bayesian framework to derive risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences along with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were conducted. GRADE methodology was used to rate the certainty in findings.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 90 days. A secondary outcome was endotracheal intubation up to 30 days.Results: Twenty-five randomized clinical trials (3804 participants) were included. Compared with standard oxygen, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.40 [95% CrI, 0.24-0.63]; absolute risk difference, -0.19 [95% CrI, -0.37 to -0.09]; low certainty) and face mask noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.68-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.06 [95% CrI, -0.15 to -0.01]; moderate certainty) were associated with a lower risk of mortality (21 studies [3370 patients]). Helmet noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.26 [95% CrI, 0.14-0.46]; absolute risk difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.60 to -0.16]; low certainty), face mask noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.62-0.90]; absolute risk difference, -0.12 [95% CrI, -0.25 to -0.05]; moderate certainty) and high-flow nasal oxygen (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.55-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.11 [95% CrI, -0.27 to -0.01]; moderate certainty) were associated with lower risk of endotracheal intubation (25 studies [3804 patients]). The risk of bias due to lack of blinding for intubation was deemed high.Conclusions and Relevance: In this network meta-analysis of trials of adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with noninvasive oxygenation strategies compared with standard oxygen therapy was associated with lower risk of death. Further research is needed to better understand the relative benefits of each strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author considers the necessity for helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as respiratory support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Topics discussed include the advantages of helmet NIV compared with face masks such as its effective seal and delivery of positive end-expiratory pressure, factors to consider prior to the widespread adoption of helmet NIV, and the results of a study on the potential role of helmet NIV in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) management.

The article discusses research which examined the use of noninvasive ventilation on intensive care patients who experienced failure in their first spontaneous breathing trial. The benefits of immediate application of noninvasive ventilation after extubation are discussed including reductions in rates of extubation failure and short-term mortality. A comparison of early extubation using protocolized non-invasive weaning with invasive ventilation is also discussed.

This Viewpoint reviews the accumulating evidence about the harms of hypoxia and hyperoxemia and cautions against indiscriminate oxygen use for most acute conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]